'Brunswick partially liable in prop accident'

Tabnabs

A very interesting and difficult case in the States has just concluded with the verdict upheld after appeal.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals last week affirmed a decision handed down last year by a jury that Brunswick Corp. was partially liable for a 2005 accident on Lake Austin, Texas, in which a teen’s leg was severed by a propeller.

The court’s decision, filed May 27, was unanimous.

Jacob Brochtrup brought the case against Mercury Marine and Sea Ray. He was 18 at the time of the accident.

On the day of the accident, Brochtrup and three others were in a 17.6-foot Sea Ray, powered by a 135-hp MerCruiser sterndrive engine. When one of the tow ropes unhooked and fell into the water, Brochtrup jumped in behind the boat to retrieve it, according to court documents.

The driver put the boat in reverse to stop its forward motion and backed over Brochtrup. The spinning propeller shredded his right leg, which was ultimately amputated at the hip joint.

According to the original suit, the manufacturer of the boat and motor did not have safety devices, including guards or covers, to prevent Brochtrup from becoming entangled or stuck.

The case proceeded to trial three times, with the first two juries unable to reach a verdict. The third jury concluded that there was a design defect and awarded damages to Brochtrup.

Jurors ordered the company to pay $3.8 million in medical expenses and damages, finding that Brunswick shared more than half the blame for the accident. Jurors found that Brochtrup also was responsible, as was the driver of the boat.

The appeals court decision includes upholding the jury finding that an unguarded propeller was “unreasonably dangerous and defectively designed.” That jury finding necessarily included determining that a guard would prevent the injury and would not adversely affect the use of the boat or engine, Brochtrup’s lawyer Robby Alden said.

“…the parties collectively spent over a million dollars testing the guard, and the jury heard substantial evidence from all experts,” Alden said in an e-mail to Soundings Trade Only. “Believe me, guards work and save lives.”

Brunswick did not immediately return a request for comment.

After last year’s verdict, Brunswick issued a statement saying they “stand behind our products, which are used safely and properly by boaters around the world.”

“While we at Brunswick remain sympathetic to the plaintiff for this unfortunate accident, we are nevertheless disappointed with today's verdict," Brunswick officials added.

source

Very unusual, but probably doesn't set a precedent?

crabc

This is PCness gone mad, at what point should people be held responsible for their own actions.
Brunswick corp. (owners of Mercury and Searay) supply exhaustive manuals citing safety and injury risk issues and also recommend taking courses on boatmanship/MOB....
....IMO a relevant course and insurance should be mandatory for all boat owners/operators.

fergal.b

It's true what they say "being stupid is it's own reward"

oscarBravo

Tabnabs wrote: »

A very interesting and difficult case in the States has just concluded with the verdict upheld after appeal.


source

Very unusual, but probably doesn't set a precedent?

As a common-law jurisdiction, it just might.

We'll need guards on airplane propellors and helicopter rotors, next.

WaterRat

Does anyone take responsibility for their actions any more? What next?

Engine on with a swimmer in the water??? And to top that he reverses over the swimmer. If he wanted to stop the forward momentum, why didn't he drop an anchor in the water? Oh, maybe the anchor was supplied without a protective grill too.

murphym7

Absolute nonsense - if anyone should have to pay it should be the guy at the helm, reckless handling of a craft putting the life of a crew member at risk.

If I speed in my car through dangerous driving and kill some poor person do Honda get brought to court because they did not fit furry marshmallows to the exterior of my car? Nonsense.

fergal.b

murphym7 wrote: »

Absolute nonsense - if anyone should have to pay it should be the guy at the helm, reckless handling of a craft putting the life of a crew member at risk.

If I speed in my car through dangerous driving and kill some poor person do Honda get brought to court because they did not fit furry marshmallows to the exterior of my car? Nonsense.

The car companies are working on it at the moment just to be on the safe side:D

murphym7

fergal.b wrote: »

The car companies are working on it at the moment just to be on the safe side:D

Thats unreal - exactly what I had in mind Fergal!:)

Should be fitted as standard to every car - bloody reckless car manufacturers!:mad:

Daibheid

“Believe me, guards work and save lives.”

So kitchen knives will have to be fitted with guards next as there's no doubt many injuries and deaths would be prevented if access to the sharp edge is prevented!

Prop guards have their uses for sure in SAR and some race boats but they certainly blunt performance. I have one on a zapcat and I figure it knocks at least 10% off the performance plus it's an absolute magnet for anything like weed in the water. Not too bad to sort on a small boat but a real pain on anything bigger where access to the prop guard would be difficult while afloat.

crabc

On Zapcats propguards are essential and were mandatory when I raced years ago, where close racing in big surf caused regular wipeouts. On sportsboats (Searays etc.) this does not happen.

Daibheid

crabc wrote: »

On Zapcats propguards are essential and were mandatory when I raced years ago, where close racing in big surf caused regular wipeouts. On sportsboats (Searays etc.) this does not happen.

Still mandatory on zapcats but the open cat classes like thundercats do not require them which IMHO is not smart. It's not hard for the crew to exit over the front of these cats meaning there's little chance of avoiding the engine leg and that's just one boat out for fun. While turning on a race mark with others running flat out.....

fergal.b

This is a prop I use sometimes I find it better than the guards it has a bit more pitch to make up for the missing tips and I only drop a few knots compared to a standard prop.

Daibheid

fergal.b wrote: »

This is a prop I use sometimes I find it better than the guards it has a bit more pitch to make up for the missing tips and I only drop a few knots compared to a standard prop.

That's quite a good compromise and apart from improving safety would help preserve the prop, and indeed the engine, when running in shallow water.
You'd think that as ducted fans work well at 600 knots boat props could use them and improve safety and efficiency.

Tabnabs

Another horrific incident where the boat builder has been held partially responsible

A Butte County jury awarded $30 million Tuesday to a Chico woman whose head was gashed by a boat propeller in a horrific wakeboarding accident five years ago on Lake Oroville.

The Superior Court panel laid 80 percent of the blame for the injuries suffered by 27-year-old Niki Bell on MasterCraft Boat Co., the manufacturer, based in Vonore, Tenn.

Plaintiffs' lawyers charged the MasterCraft X45 has a design flaw that caused the front end of the boat to submerge partially during a low-speed turn and dump Bell and another woman into the water.

"They made the bow huge – it was a Frankenstein's monster," said Bell's Sacramento attorney, Roger A. Dreyer. "They took two existing boats and combined them, but never engineered it. They made it very large so a lot of people could be in it. If it dips, the water pours in, and that's what happened."

MasterCraft's lawyer, Thomas Dale Nielsen, also of Sacramento, said the accident was the first for the boat, which is sold nationwide.

Nielsen said MasterCraft "will consider its appellate options" in assessing the verdict.

"Obviously, we are very disappointed in the outcome," Nielsen said. "We believe the evidence established that the MasterCraft X45 did not cause this accident and that while MasterCraft has great compassion for both Ms. Bell and (co-plaintiff) Ms. (Bethany) Wallenburg due to their serious injuries, we continue to believe that the accident was caused by an impaired, reckless driver."

Also represented by Dreyer's firm, Wallenburg received a $500,000 award in Tuesday's verdict.

Along with the 80 percent of responsibility the jury assigned to MasterCraft, it also found boat operator Jerry Montz, now 33, liable for 20 percent of the damages suffered by Bell and Wallenburg.

According to evidence at the trial, Montz had been drinking at the time of the accident and registered a blood-alcohol level of 0.04 percent. He was arrested after the July 9, 2006, accident and later pleaded no contest to negligent operation of a watercraft, according to his lawyer.

Montz's Roseville attorney, Jerry Duncan, said the jury's finding essentially exonerated his client, an upper Sacramento Valley rice farmer.

"He feels vindicated," Duncan said. "He's carried a burden since the accident happened because he never understood why it happened. Being able to sit through the trial enabled him and the girls' parents to understand what happened. It's just a great relief to have the case behind him."

Duncan said his client's insurance company has already paid $1 million in the case. Dreyer said Bell and Wallenburg are not planning to collect any more money from Montz.

Under strict liability law, "we are planning to get 100 percent of the verdict from the manufacturer," Dreyer said.

The two women were both washed into the lake as the boat made a 3-to-5-mph turn to retrieve a wakeboarder it was towing who had fallen, according to evidence at the trial.

As the boat continued its turn, the propeller slashed Wallenburg across the back, and it struck Bell in the head – fracturing her skull, slicing through her frontal lobe and ripping out her left eye.

Plaintiffs' lawyers argued that it was a design flaw that caused the boat to dip into the water – an excessively big bow that allowed too many people to get in the front, as well as seepage through a forward anchor slot. The defense said Montz allowed too many people on board – 19 – in a craft rated for 18. Moreover, Nielsen said, Montz allowed 12 passengers to sit in the bow.

Cindy Bell, the plaintiff's mother, said her daughter is living independently in Chico and is able to work part time.

But Niki Bell is going to need major assistance for her daily living chores for the rest of her life, her mother said. Bell's parents can provide help only as long as they're alive, according to her mother.

"You just want to make sure she's taken care of when we're dead and gone," Cindy Bell said. "We're not as worried now how she's going to handle everything when we die."

Their lead attorney, Dreyer, said the case is "a great example of the civil justice system at work, where a young woman through her parents can hold a major manufacturer responsible for a defective design and that she can, through the power of the jury process in a rural community, have the product scrutinized and evaluated."

"This is the power of democracy at work in communicating to the manufacturer that they have to take basic steps to do the right thing," Dreyer said.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/06/08/3684518/jury-awards-30-million-to-chico.html#ixzz1OgoiCfTa

And the type of boat involved

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJaaa39MBaE